Who writes this stuff anyway?
The title of this post is something I once heard a newsroom editor yell (in slightly less family-friendly form) while editing the news. Being a sciency type myself, I am most likely to have that feeling when looking over the science news. The headlines reproduced below are from the last few days and I just couldn’t resist commenting on them.
New gene therapy proves effective in treating severe heart failure
You mean, there’s such a thing as mild heart failure? For the record, I don’t want that either.
Link identified between lower IQ scores and attempted suicide in men
The key word is “attempted.” The smart ones succeed.
Eyes of cattle may become new windows to detect mad cow disease
Yes. Especially when they’re red and glow. Stay away from those cows. (believe it or not, the article actually discusses looking for glowing bits in the retina, under a microscope though. Much less funny when you put it that way).
First Paper ‘Dipstick’ Test for Determining Blood Type
Wait – is this a repeat of the one about suicide? (Dipstick test. get it?)
Apologies may fuel settlement of legal disputes, study says
Well, more so than bullets, I suppose. I want to know what government agency actually spent money to find this out.
Visual system interprets sign languages
Ummm, isn’t that why it’s sign language and not , y’know, spoken? Also repeat comment above. (Okay, okay. The visual system discussed in the article isn’t the human vision system. It’s an artificial system. Couldn’t the headline have said, “device” or something?)
Study finds poker players using drugs to enhance performance
The other guy’s performance, actually. At least that’s what my father taught me. He said when in a hot game, try to drink less beer than the other folks at the table so you won’t play as drunk as they do. Also, repeat comment repeated above.
What are the most effective strategies for secondary suicide prevention?
Maybe it’s just me but I tend to think that the primary suicide would prevent any secondary. Not to mention pretty much everything else. Also, repeat …
(Note: I wanted to work in a dipstick or mad cow joke on this one but couldn’t think of one and still make it to dinner on time. Let me know if you think of a good one.)
Believe it or not, I don’t read the science headlines just to make fun of them. Sometimes, though, it’s almost mandatory. Usually the articles are not nearly as silly. Usually.
LinkedIn
Technorati Favorites
LOL!
Sometimes the stories too ARE as silly. And sometimes even the original research is. That’s why they have the Ig-nobels and the Journal of Irreproducible Results and the Darwin Awards.
There’s an old rule of thumb that says 90% of everything is garbage. Science headlines. Science itself. Might as well laugh at it.